Fifth Edition: Structural Dynamics in Building Evaluation Guidelines Preview

Dynamics of Structures: Theory and
Applications to Earthquake Engineering

Fifth Edition
Chapter 23
Structural Dynamics in
Building Evaluation
Guidelines Preview
Copyright © 2017, 2012, 2007 Pearson Education, Inc. All Rights Reserved
Figure 23.1.1 First-Story Drift for 4-Story
Frame
(A) Maximum of Demands Due to Three GMs; (B) Average of Demands
Due to Seven GMs; And (C) Average of Demands Due to 11 GMs. The
GMs were selected randomly from an ensemble of 40 GMs. Also
shown is the benchmark value.
Figure 23.1.2 First-Story Drift for 20-Story
Frame
(A) Maximum of Demands Due to Three GMs; (B) Average of Demands
Due to Seven GMs; And (C) Average of Demands Due to 11 GMs. The
Gms Were Selected Randomly from An Ensemble of 40 GMs. Also
Shown Is the Benchmark Value
Figure 23.2.1 Histograms of Ratio  ur * SDF for the SAC –
left parenthesis u star sub r, right parenthesis sub S D F
Los Angeles 3-Story Building. The Range of Values and

the Median Value of This Ratio Are Noted
Figure 23.2.2 Histograms of Ratio  ur * SDF for SAC
left parenthesis u star sub r, right parenthesis sub S D F
Buildings: Boston, Seattle, and Los Angeles 9- and

20-Story. The Range of Values and the Median Value
of This Ratio Are Noted
Figure 23.2.3 Response Histories of Roof Displacement
of the Los Angeles 9-Story Building Due to Three
Ground Motions Determined by Two Methods, First-
Mode Contribution Determined by U MRHA and Exact
Response from Nonlinear RHA
(A) Record 39; (B) Record 22; (C) Record 21. Peak Values Are Noted
Figure 23.3.1 Deformation of SDF System Computed
by the ATC – 40 Method and from an Inelastic
Design Spectrum: (A) Comparison of Deformations;
(B) Discrepancy in the A TC - 40 Method
(Adapted from Chopra and Goel, 2000.)
Figure 23.3.2 Median Inelastic Deformation Ratios
C μ and C R for Elastoplastic Systems Subjected to
C sub mu C sub R
the LMSR Ensemble of Ground Motions
Figure 23.3.3 Comparison of Cμ for Elastoplastic
Systems with μ = 4 Subjected to (a) LMSR, LMLR, S
MSR, and SMLR Ground Motion Ensembles; And
(b) Site Class B, C, and D Ensembles
Figure 23.3.4 Comparison of Cμ for far-fault (LMSR) and
two near-fault (NF) ground motion ensembles—fault
normal (FN) components and fault parallel (FP)
components—plotted versus (a) initial elastic vibration
period Tn and (b) normalized period Tn / Tc both plots are
T sub n start fraction T sub n over T sub c end fraction
for elastoplastic systems with μ = 4
Figure 23.3.5 Comparison of CR for Far-Fault (LMS
R) and Near-Fault Ground Motion Ensembles
Plotted Versus (a) Initial Elastic Vibration Period Tn T sub n
and (b) Normalized Period, Tn / Tc ; Both Plots Are

start fraction T sub n over T sub c end fraction
for Elastoplastic Systems with R y =

R sub y =44
Figure 23.4.1 FEMA 356 Force Distributions for the
Los Angeles 9-story Building: (a) First Mode; (b) EL
F; (c) RSA; (d) Uniform. ASCE 41 Specifies Only the
First-Mode Force Distribution
Figure 23.4.2 Median Seismic Demands for the Los
Angeles 3-story Building Determined by Nonlinear R
HA and Four FEMA 356 Force Distributions, Which
Include the ASCE 41 Force Distribution: First
Mode, ELF, RSA, and Uniform: (a) Story Drift; (b)
Plastic Rotations
Figure 23.4.3 Median Story Drifts for 9- and 20-
story Buildings Determined by Nonlinear RHA and
Four FEMA 356 Force Distributions, Which Include
the ASCE 41 Force Distribution: First Mode, ELF, R
SA, and Uniform
Figure 23.4.4 Median Plastic Rotations in Interior Beams
of 9- and 20-story Buildings Determined by Nonlinear R
HA and Four FEMA 356 Force Distributions, Which
Include the ASCE 41 Force Distribution: First Mode, E L
F, RSA, and Uniform. Boston Buildings Are Excluded
Because They Remained Essentially Elastic
Figure 23.4.5 Median Story Drifts for 9-story Buildings
Determined by Three Procedures: (1) Nonlinear R HA,
(2) Four FEMA 356 Force Distributions, Which Include
the ASCE 41 Force Distribution (Upper Boxes), and (3)
MPA (Lower Boxes)
Figure 23.4.6 Median Story Drifts for 20-story Buildings
Determined by Three Procedures: (1) Nonlinear R HA,
(2) Four FEMA 356 Force Distributions, Which Include
the ASCE 41 Force Distribution (Upper Boxes), and (3)
MPA (Lower Boxes)
of 9-story Buildings Determined by Three Procedures:
(1) Nonlinear RHA, (2) Four FEMA 356 Force
Distributions, Which Include the ASCE 41 Force
Distribution (Upper Boxes), and (3) MPA (Lower Boxes).
Boston Building Is Excluded Because It Remained
Essentially Elastic
of 20-story Buildings Determined by Three Procedures:
(1) Nonlinear RHA, (2) Four FEMA 356 Force
Distributions, Which Include the ASCE 41 Force
Distribution (Upper Boxes), and (3) MPA (Lower Boxes).
Boston Building Is Excluded Because It Remained
Essentially Elastic
Copyright

Fifth Edition: Structural Dynamics in Building Evaluation Guidelines Preview

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fifth Edition: Structural Dynamics in Building Evaluation Guidelines Preview

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dynamics of Structures: Theory and

Applications to Earthquake Engineering

Los Angeles 3-Story Building. The Range of Values and

Buildings: Boston, Seattle, and Los Angeles 9- and

(Adapted from Chopra and Goel, 2000.)

the LMSR Ensemble of Ground Motions

for elastoplastic systems with μ = 4

and (b) Normalized Period, Tn / Tc ; Both Plots Are

for Elastoplastic Systems with R y =

You might also like